Are holograms even possible?
>>16273749I heard there is a hologram at the Las Vegas sphere, it has solid wheels that spin so it's nothing like the holograms in sci-fi but it still seems pretty cool, you might want to look into it.
>>16273749Of course it is as long as you have a fine mist of water droplets to illuminate with fine points of color.
>>16273749>Are holograms even possible?Yes. Go watch ABBA in London
>>16273749In the 90s they used to have whole stores at the mall that sold nothing but holograms. You could get holograms to hang on the wall, or glasses with holograms for lenses so it look like you had fucked up looking eyes. You don't get stores like that anymore.
>>16273831Those weren't holograms they were autostereograms.
>>16273749yeah but light field manipulation is decades offthe best we had was lytro and they went bankrupt because engineers suck at running companies
>>16273847No I know what I'm talking about. There were stereogram stores, but there were also hologram stores that had glass plates of what where clearly holograms like pic related.
>>16273879No, those were sterograms, holograms would have to actually extend into 3d space, not be some 2d object with an optical illusion on its face.
>>16274018No you faggot, a stereogram requires you to cross your eyes or some shitThat is NOT what this was. It was a glass plate, and you would look at it and there was a 3D image in shifting colors. No eye crossing, nothing, it was just there plain as day.You are a FAGGOT.
>>16274018Here (reddit but it will do)https://www.reddit.com/r/GenX/comments/14zaanj/who_remembers_the_mall_stores_full_of_these/
>>16274036>a stereogram requires you to cross your eyes or some shitsome, not all>a glass plateYes which has a 2d face which means the plate isn't projecting any hologram, it just has an optical illusion on its face that tricks you into believing there is a 3d object on a 2d surface.
>>16274048>optical illusion on its face that tricks you into believing there is a 3d object on a 2d surface.That's what a hologram is you PIG FUCK
>>16273749yes retard
To clarify, a hologram is a 3d object protected using light onto our 4d world. The medium should be air and people should be able to walk through them safely.
>>16273749all light shined at a parabola is reflected into the focus. In theory, anytime you have a parabolic shaped mirror and you look at the focus, you'd see a 3D image.
>>16274076These>>16274480 are real hologramsThese>>16273879 are not. They just took the term and applied them to things that looks 3d to get better sales.
>>16274480 Would such holograms even be physically possible?
>>16274544They should be. In the show Ancient Impossible, with Doctor Derek Muller(aka Veritasium,) they used a mock hologram which was actually just CGI overlay on the video frames. Demonstrating that they did have the technology available in 1970s for star wars. There is also the blockbuster movie Paycheck. Ben Affleck plays a villain of corporate espionage who steals company products for their competitors. The first technology he steals is an enclosed hologram projector which he is able to improve upon and make a true hologram. The gimmick in the film is that when he performs this sabotage all of his memories of the event are wiped. Henri Poincare dabbled in the mathematics of holograms and arrived at a determination that the 3D world could be projected from a 2D form. This means it is mathematically possible to generate holograms. Outside of science fiction, the technology gained traction when a long dead criminal appeared on stage in a performance with other notorious drug addicts back in 2012; however, it turned out that it wasn't a true hologram but computer graphics projected on a reflective surface. Such quasi-holograms have been around for over a century at the time of the performance.There are a number of promising developments in holograms, but it is likely going to be subverted by much simpler heads-up displays and augmented reality instead of true holography.
>>16273774Howabout interfering lazers and there would be no need for outside matter
>>162744804D?
>>16273749>hologramsTry searching for “volumetric display”This may be what you want. The technology is still pretty nascent.
>>16274578 I'm really not even sure what you were trying to say here. My question was simple (is it physically possible to produce three-dimensional projection without any reflectory medium, like the ones we see in Star Wars) and you just provided some long, weird examples of holograms in pop culture without answering the question. Are you a bot? Why is a raven like an office table?
>>16274493There are little gimmick devices like this. It's a parabolic reflective bowl, with an inverted lid that's open in a small circle at the top. You place any small object in the bottom of the bowl and it appears to be floating above the opening.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdoLwpGj4o
Jesus Christ science fiction has caused fuckwits to completely forget what the word hologram means.>>16274494You have it completely backwards.>>16273879 might be a hologram, it depends on how the image is produced. Holograms are a specific way of producing 3D images using light interference.>>16274480 is clearly not a hologram. It is a scene from an old science fiction movie. You can't just project a hologram in the middle of the air, the tech doesn't work like that. Holographic images don't extend any further in your field of view than the object which the image is on.
>>16275599>You can't just project a hologram in the middle of the air, the tech doesn't work like that.Its does, you can ask Tupac, the trick is to fill the air where the light is projected with a fine imperceptible mist that can reflect the light.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbrFmPBV0YNo, holograms are projections of light into 3d space, stereograms are optical illusions on the face of 2d objects.
>>16275621That's not a hologram. A hologram isn't just any 3D image.
Do you have a credit card?
>>16275645A hologram is a projection of light into 3d space to create the illusion of a solid 3d object which is exactly what that tupac hologram from coachella was rather than a 3d optical illusion fixed to a 2d object which is what a stereogram is and what you seem to keep describing.
>>16275654Stop getting your info from bad science fiction.
>>16275655Coachella isn't science fiction it is an annual music festival held in southern California.
>>16275655Stop getting your info from cheap worthless chinese toys your parents bought you in the 90s to mesmerize you and shut you up as a way to avoid having to deal with you or teach you things.
>>16275662Do yourself a favor and do a search for the word "hologram" instead of arguing wrong things that you could have found out were wrong in a few minutes of research.As for the image of Tupac at Coachella, yes, that happened, but it wasn't a hologram or even a 3D image.
>>16275671Do yourself a favor and research stereograms instead of arguing wrong things.Coachella tupac was definitely was a hologram and you are definitely describing stereograms rather than holograms, you just didn't know that not all stereograms require you to cross your eyes, some just use material tricks to have different angles refract slightly different angles of the images, some require you to move the image slightly, and some use pairs of images one after the other to achieve the effect.
>>16275677Look up the word.
I figured it out but it would probably cause a lot of light pollution and just be used for ads so Idk
>>16275682Optical holograms have existed since 1962.
>>16275678I looked up both words that is why I know that if it is just some 2d surface that gives the illusion of three dimensions, it is a stereogram, but if it is light from lasers or other sources projecting and refracting in an actual 3d plane to produce an actual 3d image, it is a hologram.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereographhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hologramAlso before you say that the sterograms you described don't require a stereoscope or special spectacles, the surface is the special thing because it is actually made of two different surfaces at two different angles with two different pictures seen from each angle.
>>16275687Now please read the definition for hologram.>a three-dimensional image reproduced from a pattern of interference produced by a split coherent beam of radiation (such as a laser) Do you see the word "projecting" in there? No you fucking don't. That's because holograms aren't projected into the air like in your sci-fi flicks. The light hits or passes through a 2D surface, and AT THE SURFACE the light's direction changes. The cool thing about holograms is that they record not just how much light was at a particular location, but how much light was passing through a particular location in every direction. So you don't just get two views of the object, you get all possible views of the object, and that's where the 3D effect comes from.
>>16275695>Do you see the word "projecting" in there?I see a description of light projection rather than the word itself.>a pattern of interference produced by a split coherent beam of radiation (such as a laser) I also see it saying that it is an actual three-dimensional image rather than an optical illusion like the sterograms you are describing.>That's because holograms aren't projected into the airWhat do you think a pattern of interference produced by a split coherent beam of radiation (such as a laser) means? What exactly do you think happens to beams of laser radiation, if not projection in the air?>The cool thing about holograms is that they record not just how much light was at a particular location, but how much light was passing through a particular location in every direction. No they don't, they are just a materials with ridged surfaces where different images are placed on the different angled ridges, so that the image you see differs depending on the angle you are looking from and that is where the 3d stereoscopic illusion effect comes from.
>>16275701>What do you think a pattern of interference produced by a split coherent beam of radiation (such as a laser) means?Do you know what an interference pattern is? Go do a double-slit experiment and you'll see a simple one -- just a pattern of light and dark bands (the patterns in holograms will in general be more complicated). In holography the pattern produced by the light from a laser beam interfering with light from the object being photographed is recorded on a photographic film. When you view the hologram, those interference patterns act like a diffraction grating, changing the direction of the light as appropriate to give you the original image.
>>16275708>Go do a double-slit experiment and you'll see a simple oneI already posted the tupac hologram video, so water droplets interfering with lasers can easily be seen there.>In holography the pattern produced by the light from a laser beamI accept your concession, holographs involve lights and lasers in 3d space, not ridges on stickers that trick you into thinking there is a 3d object on a 2d surface. Maybe they used laser holograms to produce the stereograms, but the end result of the stickers and plates with optical illusions you were originally talking about is a steroegram, not a hologram.
>>16275711Go read any old news article about how the Tupac show was done. It's just Pepper's ghost. Not a hologram, and no mist was involved. Just a projector and some basic mirror tricks. As for holograms, lasers may be used to create a hologram, but are not necessarily needed to view them. Even Denisyuk's hologram from the 60's could be viewed with normal white light.
>>16275720https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/04/17/150820261/how-that-tupac-hologram-at-coachella-worked>Not a hologram, and no mist was involvedIt was a hologram and they went the expensive clean route or using screens of iridescent mylar beads instead of mist, but more modern holographic displays tend to use fog or vapor instead of the largely transparent curtain of mylar.
>>16275731Do you see anything about interference patterns in that article? It's just mirror tricks designed to make it look like the 2D image from a projector was a guy standing on the stage. Do you think Pepper's stage tricks from the 1860s were holograms? Because they're essentially the same thing, just that Pepper was using props instead of video footage. In fact Pepper's version was more 3D than the Tupac show. His ghosts had depth to them; Tupac was just a flat image at the intended depth.
>>16275745Yes they say the word hologram many times and they explain what kind of iridescent material the projected light is interfering with it and as you have pointed out, hologram is an interference pattern, so a mention of hologram is a mention of the interference pattern.
>>16275755Interference means waves adding and subtracting because of their relative phase, not just bouncing off a sheet of glass or mylar. And there were plenty of news stories that accurately explained that it wasn't really a hologram:https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/17/tupac-hologram-wasnt-a-hologram-at-all/https://gizmodo.com/tupac-hologram-wasnt-a-hologram-5902625https://theconversation.com/tupacs-rise-from-the-dead-was-sadly-not-holography-6641https://www.baka.com.au/technology/tupacs-performance-was-no-hologram-20120425-1xkai.htmlhttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/mit-researcher-tupac-was-not-652387/https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/tupac-hologram-merely-pretty-cool-optical-illusion/
>>16273749No, the closest thing is a projection on fog\steam\smoke
>>16275757Wow, the WELL... AKSHULLY crowd, well... akshullied something?Also, this post is not actually a post.
>>16275763Well, you could trust the popular media to use words correctly when they agree with you but not when they disagree with you. Or you could read the detailed description of how it works, which is the same in all the articles, and compare that with how a hologram works, and notice that they are nothing alike.
>>16275760We didn't have a space program in the 60s either because spaceships have warp drives, inertial dampeners, and deflector shields.
>>16275764>Well, you could trust the popular media to use words correctly when they agree with you but not when they disagree with you.You mean like you did when you completely ignored the sources that didn't agree with you and you still can't justify that the things you are calling holograms are holograms since even they don't conform to your strict definition?A hologram works by projecting light into 3d space image to create a 3d image which is exactly what the hologram did and what your stereograms do not do.
>>16275776The only disagreement I have is with the NPR article's loose use of the word hologram. They explain the mechanism in the article, and it was not holography, just mirror tricks.>A hologram works by projecting light into 3d space image to create a 3d image which is exactly what the hologram did and what your stereograms do not do.See >>16275695, your definition is bogus.
>>16275779I posted that definition because it means precisely what I just posted and it has nothing to do with the stickers you used to buy at the mall, sorry you don't understand that a coherent beam of radiation just means light rays.
>>16275782The key words there are "pattern of interference."Go look at some basic explanations of how holograms work.https://www.explainthatstuff.com/holograms.html - You won't find anything about projecting, and you'll see pictures of credit cards instead of Tupac's ghost.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography - Obviously I edited the Wikipedia article to agree with myself, and that is why it only mentions projection in the sections "False holograms" and "In fiction".https://www.britannica.com/technology/holography - I must have edited this one too.
>>16275788Cool now go look at some basic explanation of how stereograms work to understand that the little stickers that let you know your trading cards are authentic are actually stereograms.
>>16275788>Obviously I edited the Wikipedia article to agree with myselfThat's against Wikipedia's terms of service
>>16275797There are some differences, such as holograms recording the image from every perspective instead of just two. But holograms are certainly more similar to stereograms than they are to your false notion of how holograms work.
>>16275803What a surprise the guy who clearly doesn't know the difference between stereograms and holograms thinks they are similar despite the definition of hologram clearly talking about it being three dimensional rather than it being an illusion of dimension.
>>16275806It's a 3D virtual image (not a real one)Like a reflection is a 3D image but it's not real
>>16275820>It's a 3D virtual image (not a real one)Which is why it is an optical illusion, a stereogram, and not a real hologram that is projected into a three-dimensional image.
>>16275825"Hologram" means "whole image" which means a whole 3D image compressed onto a 2D surface. Hope this helps!
>>16275836>whole means compressed instead of whole now tooYou have it backwards it means a 2d point of projection radiating a whole 3D image into 3D space.
>>16275839Sorry, I don't make the rules.
>>16275841Right, you just get the rules all backwards and make yourself look foolish.
>>16275007Having made it this far in the thread, it should be clear what my original post is about. Pseuds want to posit holograms are just some version of pedowood BS, which they are not. https://www.lightfieldlab.com/#techThe cutting edge is basically limited viewing angle medium resolution booths.
>>16273749Black hole surfaces are physical perfect holograms.I mean if you believe in black holes and black matter and all that.
>>16275973Those are just stacked 2d displays you idiot
>>16276091You are wrong.
>>16274018>holograms would have to actually extend into 3d spaceThat's not what holograms are. >>16273879 are what holograms are.>b-but muh moviesHOLLYWOOD LIES TO YOU, DUMBFUCK
>>16276627>HOLLYWOOD LIES TO YOU, DUMBFUCKNah
>>16276627Not according to any definition of hologram that has been provided.
>>16276091https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TfKbQJcbg0
>>16278796Stacked 2d displays with a prismatic viewpoint isolator. They're digital versions of the scratchy hologram cards from the 90s and beforeIt's ok that you don't understand how it works. It's nothing against you. You just don't understand
>>16278933You are high if you think inking a foil prism and gluing it on a trading card is the same think.
You mean original meaning of holograms, i.e. a window-like pane inside of which you can see, just like a real window or a mirror? Like in Prey (2017)? Static versions already exists, you can buy them from collectors or see them in museums. Digital screen versions suck ass for the moment, basically most screens you can buy are fake: vertical angular resolution is 1. Yup, ONE. That's not a real hologram, it's basically Nintendo 3DS, but horizontal angular resolution is greater than 2. Requirements for bandwidth, storage, computation are too high for true holography. I think this is solvable in theory.Or you mean free-floating Star Trek/Wars holograms? This isn't possible with current tech.
>>16280152See;>screens you can buy are fake: vertical angular resolution is 1. Yup, ONE. That's not a real hologram, it's basically Nintendo 3DS, but horizontal angular resolution is greater than 2.Black gorilla ape
>>16273749Dude, have you been living under a rock all these years? We've had near perfect optical holograms for decades. The military contractors have invested heavily into this technology. This is not science fiction. Read books like Optical Holography, check out IDA Memorandum Report M-317, check out the work on Quasicrystals, Quince Imaging's 3D Court Projection, Scott William's work at SAIC, the Gulf War hologram story (The Face of Allah), the holograms used in the 2008 US election on CNN (which were actually dumbed down versions made more palatable for general Sci-Fi movie audiences).Most people have no idea how cool this tech actually is.
>>16280175>Static versions already existsYou can see them in those videos:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D5yzaTn26Yhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaDdQ0PryNIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDXpqOhQm0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsyzTUa-3VEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmK2GapHmyghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp7BP00LuA4
>>16273749i dont know but for me it seems harder to create a realistic all purpose hologram than just streaming it directly to the brain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJZ1RX3apzI
>>16273749i see the thread got derailed by some asshole who thinks stereograms are relevant. anyhow, yes they already exist primitively. i see them in some airports i frequent and I've seen them in arcades, too. to my memory they're always circular or rotating. I'm not sure if it's a constraint but they appear to be generated by lasers firing off about a circle very quickly.
>>16281610Just watch the videos above for real holograms. They're supposed to look like windows. If they rotate, they're not real holograms.
>>16273749Is there a difference between your mother and a hologram of your mother?
>>16281610I suspect you're thinking about those spinning LED sticks, which while marketed with terms like "holographic 3D fan" are none of those things.
>>16281829Stack a lot of them on top of each other, and you've got yourself a true volumetric screen. That said, even if it looks like it, it's not really free-floating: touching it would mangle your fingers, it's loud as hell, and it have nothing to do with holography.
They pretty much exist already
Obviously holograms exist, but it seems some people are pissed off by the fact that they don't live up to science fiction. So here are some cool prototype displays that are not holograms:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aAx2uWcENchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoOiXkXmYQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOnxr9Ez_Kc
>Are holograms even possible?Volumetric displays are a thing. That's about as close to what you're thinking of as we'll get. Second best is real holograms and pepper's ghost illusions.
>>16282029You forgot about AR tech like HoloLens and Magic Leap. (HoloLens does indeed use holographic tech, but not in the way you think. Image you see with your eyes is not holographic).
>>16273749pure
not in clear air. you need something for light to scatter from/interact with, so it gets redirected to your eyes.but fully doable virtually in your brain, provided you have the necessary augmentation for it.
>>16282765>you need something for light to scatter from/interact with,Can't you do it with air alone given a temperature differential.
Aren't those drone swarm shows a really primitive version of free-floating holograms? They're not intangible, tho.
>>16283362dunno but sounds energetically expensive
>>16274480No. A hologram is higher dimensional image encoded into lower dimensions. Typically you see those in 2D laser holographic films that depicts 3D images. What OP is talking about, and what 3CPO is projecting, is a volumetric image.
